More than likely because of the high rate of addiction in the US, it's a chemical problem, but there are addictions (ex: food addiction) that have a greater relation to allergies more than behavioral problems.

1:52 pm April 30, 2012

Harleynut@mail.com wrote :

YES and unless you can remove that addition gene, it will continue to happen.

2:06 pm April 30, 2012

Jesse wrote :

Or it could be that teenagers are at that age where they want to explore new things. Since drugs and sex are usually forbidden things to teenagers, it is no wonder that teens want to try these things. Creating the forbidden fruit have brought our drug and sex problems that we have in society today.

10:03 am May 1, 2012

P Dilly wrote :

Here is the paper being referred to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22544311 Based on that abstract, Whelan neuroscience and behavior research in order to try and isolate which regions of the brain might be associated with the 'impulsivity phenotype'. It appears that the man simply asked teens whether they had previously taken drugs or not and used statistics from his otherwise valid research to try and create some sort of correlation between impulsivity and drug use (the term 'drug abuse' is miss-used here, just see the DSM-IV). This is in no way good science and is just speculation... Furthermore, Whelan seems to be extending this impulsivity-drug-use correlation to addiction. There is no way that his experiment conducted the research necessary to make any claims about that problem term, 'addiction'. Why would he publish otherwise valid research in conjunction with sweeping, generalized, and unsupported remarks? It happens all of the time in legitimate scientific publications. Take this paper that the famous Eric Kandel was last author on: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/3/107/107ra109.full#ref-31 I will quote a section for you: "Many drugs of abuse, including heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and the two drugs that we have studied here, nicotine and cocaine, exert their addictive effects in part by increasing the amount of dopamine in the ventral striatum (31)." LSD has never been shown to 'exert addictive effects'! If you look at the paper they were siting as evidence, you get: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536517/?tool=pubmed
I have seen a number of disconcerting articles discussed in the media lately and would like to address the issue.
All of the articles sited for the purpose of my argument can be found on pubmed.
Based on the abstract of the Whelan paper, Whelan uses neuroscience and behavior research techniques in order to try and isolate which regions of the brain might be associated with the ‘impulsivity phenotype’. It appears that the man simply asked teens whether they had previously taken drugs or not and used statistics from his otherwise valid research to try and create some sort of correlation between impulsivity and drug use (the term ‘drug abuse’ is miss-used here, just see the DSM-IV). This is in no way good science and is just speculation… Furthermore, Whelan seems to be extending this impulsivity-drug-use correlation to addiction. There is no way that his experiment conducted the research necessary to make any claims about that problem term, ‘addiction’.
Why would he publish otherwise valid research in conjunction with sweeping, generalized, and unsupported remarks? It happens all of the time in legitimate scientific publications. Take this paper that the famous Eric Kandel was last author on: “Molecular mechanism for a gateway drug: epigenetic changes initiated by nicotine prime gene expression by cocaine” (also on pubmed). I will quote a section for you:
“Many drugs of abuse, including heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and the two drugs that we have studied here, nicotine and cocaine, exert their addictive effects in part by increasing the amount of dopamine in the ventral striatum (31).”
LSD has never been shown to ‘exert addictive effects’! If you look at the paper they were siting as evidence, you get: “Opposing actions of chronic stress and chronic nicotine on striatal function in mice” (also on pubmed)
No where in that paper is LSD even mentioned. So, even the Nobel Prize winning scientist puts his name on unfounded claims. There are two reasons that scientists do this. One reason is that scientists need to be productive and continue publishing. They can’t make too many objections about the direction of their paper when their only grant source (NIDA or NIH) wants a paper that supports old views, and, if they don’t publish, they lose their jobs. The other reason is that scientists are people too. They have their own biases, perceptions, and goals outside of the research they are doing. These factors unfortunately lead to legitimate research being turned into misleading literature that becomes sensationalized for the public.

10:03 am May 1, 2012

Venderford wrote :

I have seen a number of disconcerting articles discussed in the media lately and would like to address the issue.
All of the articles sited for the purpose of my argument can be found on pubmed.
Based on the abstract of the Whelan paper, Whelan uses neuroscience and behavior research techniques in order to try and isolate which regions of the brain might be associated with the ‘impulsivity phenotype’. It appears that the man simply asked teens whether they had previously taken drugs or not and used statistics from his otherwise valid research to try and create some sort of correlation between impulsivity and drug use (the term ‘drug abuse’ is miss-used here, just see the DSM-IV). This is in no way good science and is just speculation… Furthermore, Whelan seems to be extending this impulsivity-drug-use correlation to addiction. There is no way that his experiment conducted the research necessary to make any claims about that problem term, ‘addiction’.
Why would he publish otherwise valid research in conjunction with sweeping, generalized, and unsupported remarks? It happens all of the time in legitimate scientific publications. Take this paper that the famous Eric Kandel was last author on: “Molecular mechanism for a gateway drug: epigenetic changes initiated by nicotine prime gene expression by cocaine” (also on pubmed). I will quote a section for you:
“Many drugs of abuse, including heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and the two drugs that we have studied here, nicotine and cocaine, exert their addictive effects in part by increasing the amount of dopamine in the ventral striatum (31).”
LSD has never been shown to ‘exert addictive effects’! If you look at the paper they were siting as evidence, you get: “Opposing actions of chronic stress and chronic nicotine on striatal function in mice” (also on pubmed)
No where in that paper is LSD even mentioned. So, even the Nobel Prize winning scientist puts his name on unfounded claims. There are two reasons that scientists do this. One reason is that scientists need to be productive and continue publishing. They can’t make too many objections about the direction of their paper when their only grant source (NIDA or NIH) wants a paper that supports old views, and, if they don’t publish, they lose their jobs. The other reason is that scientists are people too. They have their own biases, perceptions, and goals outside of the research they are doing. These factors unfortunately lead to legitimate research being turned into misleading literature that becomes sensationalized for the public.

3:00 pm June 15, 2012

Avery D. wrote :

i am confused as how to site this properly for a project on teens and drug use with recent studies that have been conducted.

6:13 am July 23, 2012

Louis wrote :

I don´t know provides enough information to say that young people are genetically predisposed to have addictions to snuff, drugs or alcohol. I think it also influences the social environments in which they operate. health

3:11 pm August 26, 2012

Regina wrote :

Linda is right, for some, time does heal certain tinhgs, but it can also be double-edged sword. The more time passes, the more likely you are to not get what you wanted so badly. Time ticks away and with each tick so does hope and expectation. Some tinhgs are not God-given, inalienable rights, but we still expect Him to give us what we want.Great prompt and beginning of what could be an awesome short story. Maybe I'll take up the challenge and write about something I've let go and moved on from, but that still remains to be seen as, though I've moved on, the stigma remains the same. Thank you, Denise!

2:02 pm May 13, 2013

Admitidly wrote :

This! While I agree that being a powerful speaker is great, but at some point you have to deliver.

3:45 am August 25, 2014

Roy wrote :

I just brought anEgo C 650 Starter Kit from cloudchaserz.com. The product is very user friendly.

I am using it from last 7-8 days and it helps me to reduce my smoking habit within few days.

I support electronic cigarette very much after started vaping.

Thanks.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.